John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from > > > the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE > > > agrees. > > > > I just read the contents of > > > > /usr/share/doc/bacula-director-sqlite/copyright > > > > I have reproduced it below for debian-legal. The Linking section, > > which is needed for linking with OpenSSL, is not a problem for > > GPL-compatibility. The other parts may or may not be a problem, and > > indeed seem superfluous, but all that is needed is the Linking > > section. > > But the problem is that parts of Bacula's code are copyrighted by third > parties, and licensed under plain GPL (or Kern's license before he added > this exception), and may be unreachable for obtaining permission to > relicense with this exception. (Kern, have you tried contacting them?)
I understand. My impression was that there was a claim that the exemption had to be removed for all files, not just the problematic ones. So I tried to allay that particular concern. > So the question really is: how can we have Bacula in Debian, with SSL > support, but without that clause? Make Bacula use GnuTLS. Unfortunately, that may take some effort. Downloading the 2.0.3 release, it seems that bacula uses the headers <openssl/ssl.h> <openssl/evp.h> <openssl/x509v3.h> <openssl/rand.h> <openssl/err.h> <openssl/asn1.h> <openssl/asn1t.h> According to this page http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/comparison.html GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need ECC. > And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation? Michael Poole gave a good answer. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
